5.  The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Budapest.
6.  In the evening of 19 August 2006 the applicant was involved in a minor car accident at a parking lot in the town of Siófok. He claimed that he had found his car damaged when he had returned to the parking lot from a nearby restaurant in order to fetch some cash, whereas the police asserted – based on the testimony of an eye witness, an off-duty policeman who had been passing by – that it had been the applicant who had crashed into a parked car with his own vehicle while driving out of the parking lot. In response to an alert from the off-duty police officer, at around 10.40 p.m. the Siófok Police Station sent two patrolling officers, I.K. and K.P.P., to the scene of the accident.
7.  The two officers checked the applicant’s identity and breathalysed him. The test clearly showed that he was heavily under the influence of alcohol. He was accordingly taken to the Siófok Medical Centre for a blood and urine test. The test was performed by Dr I.E.V. at 11.40 p.m. She recorded on the blood alcohol test form that the applicant’s legs were injured. The applicant was then taken to another department of the Medical Centre, where Dr Gy.K. examined him at 12.15 a.m. on 20 August and recorded superficial abrasions on his left knee and ankle.
8.  After the examination, the applicant was driven back to the parking lot because the officers had received instructions to take photographs of the scene. When the applicant was informed that, after the pictures had been taken, he would be taken to the police station to fill in certain papers, he attempted to escape. While running past the officers, he knocked over Officer K.P.P, who suffered superficial abrasions. Officer I.K. chased the applicant and finally managed to bring him to the ground and to handcuff him with the help of K.P.P. According to the police, during the chase the applicant crossed a number of roads, and while doing so he bumped into and fell over some moving cars.
9.  Subsequently, the officers requested help by radio. Two other police cars arrived, and at 12.30 a.m. the applicant was driven to the Siófok Police Station by Officers G.V. and Z.S.
10.  Before the applicant – by then suspected of the offence of violence against an official – was taken into custody, he was sent from the police station back to the Medical Centre for another medical examination. He was driven to the Medical Centre by Officers Sz.R. and Z.S.
11.  At 12.43 a.m., Dr Gy.K. again examined the applicant and recorded that, in addition to the abrasions on his leg, already recorded, he had a small swelling on his cheek.
12.  Following the medical examination, the applicant was taken back to the Siófok Police Station and placed in a cell in the station’s custodial unit. He was guarded by Officers Z.T. and P.L.
13.  Due to his allegedly strange behaviour, around 3.00 a.m. the applicant was again driven in a police van to the Medical Centre for a drug test, escorted by Officers Gy.C., M.N., Sz.R. and Z.M. At 3.15 a.m. Dr I.E.V. carried out the drug test, after which the applicant was taken back to the police station.
14.  The applicant submits that during one of the transfers described above, he was ill-treated in the police car or van by the police officers escorting him, who allegedly hit him in the face, sides and stomach. He also submits that, during his custody after the drug test, he was severely ill-treated by four police officers in the corridor of the custodial unit. He was allegedly made to stand with his face against the wall, and was kicked and/or hit by several police officers all over his body. He fell to the ground, where the ill-treatment continued. He received kicks and blows in his back, side, kidney area, pelvis, back of the neck, temple, jaw, upper back and thighs. Afterwards, he was again made to stand up against the wall and ordered to spread his legs, following which a police officer he could not see kicked him in the testicles. He then collapsed and the beating ended.
15.  Although the applicant states that owing to his drunkenness and the beating he is not fully able to reconstruct the events of the night, or to recognise all the police officers who ill-treated him, he was adamant throughout the entire ensuing procedure that he could recognise two of the four officers who were present during his beating in the custodial unit. In the course of the investigation, the applicant identified those two officers as G.V. and Z.T.
16.  The applicant’s custody ended on 20 August at 7.00 a.m. From 7.54 to 8.09 a.m. he was questioned by Officer M.T. under suspicion of drug abuse, since the drug test had revealed traces of marijuana in his blood.
17.  After his release, the applicant was driven by a friend to the nearby town of Balatonkenese, where he and his wife were spending their holiday. The applicant told them that he had been ill-treated and showed them his injuries. The applicant spent the whole day resting at his friend’s place. He was given pain killers by his wife. Both his wife and his friend confirmed that he had visible injuries.
18.  In the evening of 20 August, the applicant travelled back to Budapest, and the next day he visited general practitioner Dr Cs.K., who recorded the following injuries: swelling on the left cheek, sensitive to pressing; walnut-sized localised swelling filled with blood on the left side of the top of the head; superficial crusted bruises around the left wrist and the lower arm; cherry-sized contusions on the left and right upper arm; a walnut-sized contusion on the upper front part of the left hip; egg-sized crusted bruises on both sides of the waist; as well as abrasions above both knees (two cherry-sized abrasions above the right, and one walnut-sized and one egg-sized abrasion above the left knee).
19.  After recording the injuries, the general practitioner sent the applicant to the Department of Urology of Szent János Hospital in Budapest, because his left testicle was severely swollen. In addition to the injuries detected by the general practitioner, at the Department of Urology it was recorded that the applicant’s left testicle was swollen to the size of a goose egg. A contusion of the testicle and a haematocele (swelling caused by blood collecting in a body cavity) were established. Since treatment did not help, the urologist suggested surgery, which the applicant refused.
20.  On 26 August 2006 the applicant’s legal representative filed a complaint with the Siófok Police Station and requested that the part of the complaint relating to the applicant’s ill-treatment be forwarded to the competent prosecutorial investigation office.
21.  Based on the forwarded complaint, the Kaposvár Prosecutorial Investigation Office launched an investigation. The Office subsequently heard the applicant and numerous police officers, held an identification parade and a series of confrontations, and obtained an expert opinion. In spite of the fact that the applicant claimed to have recognised two of the four police officers who were present during his ill-treatment in the custodial unit, the Office terminated the investigation on 20 February 2007. It stated that although the injury to the applicant’s testicle was caused by ill-treatment that might have been inflicted during his detention at the Siófok Police Station, it was not possible to establish the identity of the perpetrator. According to the decision to terminate the proceedings, the police officers who might have inflicted the ill-treatment all denied responsibility and corroborated each other’s statements; the doctors whom the applicant had met on the night of the events claimed not to have detected injuries that might have been indicative of ill-treatment, and the applicant had made contradictory statements during the procedure, which might well have been because he was heavily under the influence of alcohol and drugs, but which weakened his credibility all the same.
22.  On 14 March 2007 the applicant’s counsel submitted a complaint against the decision to terminate the investigation to the Somogy County Chief Prosecutor’s Office, submitting that the Prosecutorial Investigation Office had not taken all the possible measures to establish the responsibility of the perpetrators, and that in any event the evidence was sufficient to press charges against the two officers whom the applicant had recognised.
23.  On 30 March 2007 the Chief Prosecutor’s Office rejected the complaint. That decision, including a warning that no further remedy lay against the rejection, was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 17 April 2007.